Developer and Financier Survey

Introduction

Developer and Financier Research: survey responses from developers and financiers to assess price sensitivities of language used in contract agreements

Due to the exploratory nature of this research, Solstice intends to leave analyses associated with the developer and financier component of this research unstructured in part. As a result of the expected small sample size, described in more detail below, we do not expect to be able to test for significance between observations. Rather, this analysis will be conducted through a detailed analysis of primary data collected via survey responses. Absence of existing published data detailing limiting factors and decision points related to constructing community solar subscriber agreements makes it difficult to establish a baseline in order to conduct hypotheses-generated analyses as outlined in previous sections. This research takes a grounded theory approach to construct theory through primary data collection and subsequent comparative analysis.

Average program terms

  1. What is the average savings rate offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
  2. Do savings rates offered by different community solar developers and financiers?
  3. What are average term length offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
  4. Do cancellation clauses offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?
  5. What is the average subscriber contract page length offered by developers and financiers within their community solar programs?

Further,

  1. Do economic/financing factors influence developers and financiers to structure community solar subscriber contracts?
  2. Under what conditions are developers willing to adjust their programmatic terms to include LMI populations in their programs?

The primary outcome of this research will be collecting and analyzing average terms used by solar developers and financiers in existing community solar contracts. The secondary outcome of the survey responses from developers and financiers will be measured by variables suggested to influence and limit offerings for existing community solar products.

Methods

There were 254 unique responses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Savings Rates

34.4% of respondents marked savings rate from 0-10%; 33% recorded 11-15%, and 32.5% answered 16-50%. Hence, nearly two-thirds of respondents recorded over 10% for savings rate for community solar.

Term Length

Cancellation Fee

Factors: Ability to make CS accessibility to LMI

CAC

Churn

Default

Communication

LMI ID

Financing

Takeaways

  1. Customer aqcuisition costs (CAC) was the strongest factor, with 55.5% responding as either very or extremely important.

  2. Defaults were relatively less important, nearly a quarter (23.6%) responding that it was either not at all or slightly important. When compared to threat of churn, respondents shifted from slightly to moderately important, implying that churn is more of a concern compared to default.

Bar Charts

Factors: Influence decision to include LMI in projects

Policy

Community Interest

Financier Interest

Company Interest

Equity

Takeaways

  1. For factors influencing the decision to include LMI households in CS projects, the most common answer was policy requirements and equity/inclusion efforts, with 63% and 58% or respondents marking these as very or extremely important, respectively.

  2. Community interest exhibited a large degree of moderate importance, with 44.7% of respondents, whereas only 43% respondents marked it as either very or extremely important, the smallest proportion exhibited in each of the five questions.

Bar Charts

Factors: Fill out CS Projects Quickly

Savings rate

Term length

Cancel fee

No On-bill credit

On-bill credit

Contract complex

Trust

Takeaways

  1. presence of on-bill credit for community solar projects exhibited the strongest positive response, with 58% of respondents recording it as probably or definitely impacted speed of CS projects being completed.
  2. Conversely, though marginally different, contract complexity and trust were the least powerful, with 17.6% and 19% of respondents, respectively, stating it either probably not or definitely did not have an effect on projects being quickly filled out.

Bar Charts

Savings Rate for Market and LMI

Churn Rate for Market and LMI

Project stage by highest churn/default

COD = commerical operational date (?)

Loan Loss Reserve

Alleviate Risk

Ideal Loan Loss Reserve

Summary statistics for loan loan reserve, percentage of total project revenue:

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
##    3.00   20.00   34.00   36.87   50.00  100.00

Summary statistics for loan loan reserve, percentage of total years covered:

##    Min. 1st Qu.  Median    Mean 3rd Qu.    Max. 
##   1.000   2.000   5.000   9.132   7.000  70.000

Respondent Map

Coordinates have been obfuscated to protect location.

Discussion